Below is a letter from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher responding to my concerns about the environment here in Orange County. I have a hunch many will agree it is very troubling. I remind you of his own words….climate change is “a liberal fabrication to get funding for research and part of a worldwide plan to control our lives.” Environmental legislation is based on “emotional junk science.” Take note. He is vice chairman of the Committee for Science, Space and Technology and serves on the subcommittee on the environment.
I am sharing with you my response, deconstructed, from his Feb. 23 letter.
“Thank you for contacting me with your views regarding global warming and our changing climate. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.
“I want to assure you that I am very concerned, as all Americans are, about major ecological problems that the world faces and agree that the United States must actively take steps to protect our environment today, as well as for the children of tomorrow. With that in mind, it is indeed important to note that the changes seen in our climate are well within the bounds of recent natural variability.”
- You are shrugging off alarming climate change data as normal weather?
“Although global carbon dioxide (CO 2) concentrations are increasing, it is difficult to quantify the effect of industrial, automotive and other emission sources in terms of extreme weather, sea level rise, and other possible impacts.”
- Scientific evidence has put this issue to rest. We are beyond debating the threat of man made climate change.
“There are considerable differences and uncertainties between observations taken over different periods of time, and there is even less certainty about the accuracy of computer models that project future changes based on extrapolation of these data sets.”
- No. Wrong.
“I am also concerned that many are advancing their theories for political reasons.”
- You declared climate change is a political issue – not the scientific community, which bases its conclusions on facts and evidence.
“Therefore, we must not rush into binding international agreements which will restrict the sovereignty of the United States in addressing the controlling of the production of greenhouse gases.”
- Seriously? We are not rushing; we are already late.
“Additionally, I will not support Congressional action that will destroy America’s industrial base and throw millions of people out of work, based upon our current scientific data, analysis, and projections.”
- An absurd claim with no basis of fact. The Paris Agreement will not throw millions of people out of work. The green economy is creating new jobs right here in Orange County. You should be a champion of these companies.
“Before we take action that will have a profound detrimental effect on our culture, and our economy, it is clear that additional scientifically based research is needed; and increased understanding and certainty about the link between specific activities and impacts must be developed.”
- Sir, your “opinion” and inaction on our behalf will indeed have a profound detrimental effect. Your plans to undermine the EPA will have consequences here in California, which if you haven’t noticed has endured epic droughts, flooding, mud slides, wildfires, coastal erosion and more heartache due to climate change. None of this is “well within the bound of natural variability.” Please join us in protecting California’s natural beauty and help protect our economy directly affected by these crisis as well. This is your responsibility.
“Again, thank you for giving me the benefit of your views. Please continue to keep me informed about this and any other federal issues of concern to you.
“Sincerely, Dana Rohrabacher, Member of Congress”
Lizanne Witte, Laguna Beach
Editor’s Note: An exception was made on the length of this letter due to the nature of the submission.